Games and Simulations for Teaching and Learning

PRE- AND IN- SERVICE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GAMES AND SIMULATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM

INTRODUCTION
This study seeks to examine pre-and in-service teachers' perceptions of games and simulations in the classroom environment.By examining the perceptions and attitudes of this population we hope to develop an understanding of how games are perceived by teachers in the classroom.We begin this proposal by justifying a need to develop research around gaming in the classroom by presenting information on current gaming trends and perspectives.We then focus on the use of gaming in the classroom and discuss how games are processed and the ways they are currently being used.We conclude this proposal by discussing the methodology being used to conduct the study of pre- and in-service teachers' perceptions about games and simulations for teaching and learning.
JUSTIFICATION
Games and simulations are becoming much more prevalent in homes, schools, and workplaces.One study indicated that more K-12 students use their home computers for games and simulations than for school homework assignments (NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, 2003). Clearly, computer and video games are a part of the daily lives of students at the K-12 level (Simpson, 2005). These same students have expectations of their educational environment that include the nuances of the gaming environment including challenges, and complex interactivity (Squire et al, 2005).
Educational simulations and games engage students in virtual worlds where they apply their knowledge, skills, and strategies to assigned roles or situations (Gredler, 2004). Learning in general, as well as how people learn is multidimensional (Gardner, Kornhaber, & Wake, 1996).Simulations and games provide multi-sensory interaction, visualization, and symbols. Visualizations and symbols augment human cognitive capacities and help to convey concepts and information (Tversky, 2001).Much more effective than tutorials and drills, simulations enhance motivation, transfer of learning, efficiency, and flexibility while being safe, convenient, and controllable over real experiences (Alessi & Trollip, 2001).Today, youngsters grow up playing video & computer games, watching MTV, Instant Messaging, and watching action movies (Simpson, 2005).As a result of exposure to these fast paced environments, children learn to adapt to speed and thrive on it.
Worldwide, it is understood that computers, the Internet, or games and simulations cannot replicate the fine art of teaching. These tools can, of course, augment an already high-quality educational experience, but to rely on them as any sort of panacea would be a costly mistake (Flowers, 2001). Instructional designers remove barriers to individualized learning when they focus on information objects, scaffolds, discourse action communities, and facilitation (Moller et. Al., 2002). The use of gaming and simulation tools must fit instructional goals and and learning styles of users and instructors (Leopold-Lusmann, 2000). Additionally, online use of these tools may provide an environment that is mostly time and place independent (Deal, 2002). The investment goes beyond buying expensive equipment; school systems need to invest in educating teachers to properly integrate new technologies and to properly use the learning management systems and other tools available to enhance teaching and learning (Blair, 2002).
Educators who are looking for fun and exciting ways to teach their students using technology can accomplish this through computer-based gaming.The computer-based gaming trend is growing rapidly in schools, corporations, and agencies because computer game design and development is becoming easier for the average computer user.Without extensive training and with basic technology skills, people can program simple games using software like Microsoft PowerPoint, HTML, and Adobe Flash.The rapid increase in popularity of computer-based gaming encourages educators to develop more interactive ways to train their students (Carstens and Beck, 2005). Responses from students are overwhelmingly positive when gaming and technology are introduced and used to help them learn (Prensky, 2001). The possibilities for this technology are growing because many school districts have seen the need for computer-based learning and are investing money into the future of technology integrated for teaching and learning.
GAMING IN THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
Gaming theory and instructional design theory provides a foundation for developing games and simulations that are an effective learning solution (Thomas, 2003; Reiser & Dempsey, 2002). Game theory is based upon applied mathematics and relates to players interacting through the use of strategies and actions. Instructional design theory is the analysis of learning structures and the detailed development of instructional situations.The high-end expensive technology often used to produce these games provides complex special effects and interactions.However, effective games must reach specific outcomes related to skills development or acquired knowledge for users. Researchers have long been interested in how to best structure virtual learning environments (Mayer, 2003; Sweller, 1999). Additionally, Studies by Sanger, Phelps, and Fienhold (2000), Burdk, Greenbowe and Winschitl (1998), Suits and Diack (2002), and Williamson and Abraham (1995) suggested that simulations used to teach molecular level chemistry have value in the classroom. In another recent study, researchers found that animations can help students better understand dynamic molecular processes (Kelly & Jones, 2005). However, students take animation features literally and hence may misinterpret them, especially in cases where explanations are not clearly provided (Kelly & Jones, 2004). Visualizations, when effectively designed and used can help to insure adequate perception and comprehension in the real-world context of student learning (Tversky, 2001; Tasker, 2004).To be effective in teaching and learning, animations and interactive educational games must be designed based upon what is known about the principles of learning (Leahy & Sweller, 2004).
Much like good maps, quality animations and games can illustrate structure and spatial elements and relationships. Tversky (2003) concludes that maps don't necessarily have to be spatially accurate to work effectively in teaching such relationships. Effective graphics and maps are never representative (one-to-one) and usually expand or compress time and distances. Likewise, effective animations might also distort perspectives and space to illustrate important features and concepts. Additionally like many map and diagram designers do, animation developers might include pictorial devises such as symbols, arrows, boxes and brackets. Often these devices can help learners focus on important features and processes in the animation, signaling learners about important features in these complex animations.
Foundational instructional design research conducted by Pavio (1986) clearly indicated that pictures and graphics teach better than written or aural words. Additionally, simple pictures (without detail) are as productive as complex (with much detail) pictures. More interesting for animation designers, Pavio found that teaching with pictures combined with words increased memory-recall and transfer of information. More recently, Mayer (2001) has developed a research-based cognitive theory of multimedia learning, which is founded in the earlier work by Pavio and other researchers. Mayer conducted many studies of animations and diagrams that concluded duel channels for cognitively processing information. For example, when we see and hear something at the same time our mind coordinates both of these separate channels. This is the case with all of our senses, but it is much more prevalent with vision and hearing. Mayer found that word and pictures should be used simultaneously and should be presented close to each other in space. Additionally, Mayer found that audio narration is superior to textual explanations. Mayer's design principles have much more impact upon novice learners whom have higher spatial perceptions and abilities. Because his body of research has been well developed, animators should heed Mayer's guidelines.
Mayer (1998) also defines learning processes as selecting, organizing, and integrating, which occur throughout the phases of memory development. He suggests that short-term memory serves as a mediator between the stimuli and cognition, and that there are limitations in the capacity of working memory. There is a relationship between long- and short-term (working) memory in that information passes through short-term memory before becoming long-term memory (Sweller, 2003, 2004). Sweller's cognitive load theory suggests that short-term (working) memory has a limited capacity and can be overloaded. Because many animations are conveying a variety of structural and functional issues, these complex animations will overload working memory quite quickly.
Because students with prior knowledge are more successful at using animations for learning (Mayer, 2001), instructors provide scaffolds from prior knowledge to new information (Suits, 2000). One such way to activate and use prior knowledge is to have students make predictions about what happens next during the use of animations for learning (Hegarty et al., 2003). Hegarty et al. found that combining predictions with animations showed better results than animations alone when learning about a mechanical system. Additionally, the use of predictions with animations increases the interactivity of the animation during the learning process.
Much like many other educational technology tools, animations and games need to be integrated into a larger learning environment (Tasker, 2004).Instructors focus attention on students' prior knowledge while drawing students' attention to key features and functions portrayed in the animation. Because students learn better when they control the pace of the instruction (Mayer and Chandler (2001), effective animations are segmented and offer features such as pause and replay buttons. Additionally, increasing the level of interactivity of animations stimulates engagement and motivation of learners (Lowe, 2004).
Designers of animations and games explore the user's (learner's) perspectives, developing the interface and design to address the needs of the user. Defined as the instructional cues between a system and a user, an interface is the form and function of connecting to the instructional system (Hackos & Redish, 1998;Marchionini, 1995). As compared to a system-centered design approach (Johsnon, 1998), usability design addresses the needs and situations related to the end-user of the technical piece, in this case the game. User-centered theory speaks to the user's perceptions and the user's situation. Aesthetics and attractiveness impacts student attitudes towards using an animation (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003). When learners find the interface to be attractive and aesthetic, they tend to perceive the system as being effective. Addressing these perceptions helps learners find games or simulations easier to use and as a motivation for problem solving and self-guided learning.
METHOD
The sample used in this study entails 250 pre- and in-service teachers from several Mid-Atlantic Universities whom were taking courses related to educational technology from both undergraduate and graduate classes.These participants volunteered to take a thirty-item survey related to their perceptions and understandings about the use of games and simulations for learning.Most questions were structured using a likert scale and included several open ended short answer questions. Participants took this survey online, and their responses were submitted electronically into a data system for analysis by general statistics. Comparisons in the data were made between the responses of two major groups, pre-service and in-service teachers. Additionally, the survey contained questions to collect general demographic information about the participants, including their learning style, age, gender, years of teaching experience, level of education, and geographic location.
CONCLUSION
Because there have been recent advances in technology and availability of equipment, the possibilities for gaming in the educational world is endless.Games and simulations can range from simple, single user games that are played using a mouse and keyboard to games that are complete virtual simulations.Each of these types may have their own uses and practicalities.Although this study found that teachers have mixed perceptions about how, when and why to use animations for learning, much more research is needed to determine how to best structure and use these innovative tools. Because there are wide ranges of types, uses, and structures of games and simulations for learning, generalizing findings can be a daunting challenge. The rise of simple computer-based games has grown in use because game programming is becoming easier.The trend for easy development will help get educators who are not computer experts to feel comfortable using technology in their classroom and to create their own games.As this trend of easy development is combined with broader understanding of how games can help teaching and learning, the use of computer-based games and technology in classrooms will likely grow. If these tools are to live up to their promises to improve teaching and learning, we must strive to understand the ways that designing and using them impacts quality teaching and learning in schools.

References

Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Baylor, A. L. (2000). Cognitive strategies for training with technology. TechTrends. 44 (5), 13-15.

Blair, J. (2002). The Virtual Teaching Life. Education Week, 21(35), 31.

Burke K, Greenbowe T, Windschitl M. 1998. Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education. 75:1658–61.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2004) from

Denver Post. (2005) States Future at Risk. November 27. Denver, Colorado

Carstens, A., Beck, J. (2005). Get Ready for the Gamer Generation. Tech Trends: Journal of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 49 (3), 22-25.

Deal, W. F., (2002). Distance learning: Teaching technology online. Technology Teacher, 61 (8), 21-27.

Entertainment Software Association. (2005). Game Player Data. Available online:

Flowers, Jim (2001). Online Learning Needs in Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 13 (1), 17-30.

Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M., & Wake, W. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. in Jonassen, D. H. (2004) Handbook of Research on educational Communications and Technology. IEA Publications, Mahwah, NJ.

Hackos, J. T. & Redish, J. C. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design. New York, NY: Wiley Computer Publishing.

Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., &Cate, C. (2003). The role of mental animations in external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.

Johnson, R. R. (1998). User centered technology. New York: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Kelly, R., & Jones, L. (2005) A qualitative study of how general chemistry students interpret features of molecular animations. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Kelly, R., M. Duis, J. M., & Jones, L. (2004) What students mislearn from molecular animations. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul, Turkey.

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J​‌. (2004) Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology.18:7, 857

Leopold-Lusmann, B. D., (2000). Virtual Learning Environments and Student Learning Styles. International ONline Seminar: Teaching and Studying in Virtual Learning Environments. 7.

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J. (2003). Universal principles of design. Rockport Publishers.

Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.

Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Melbourne, Australia: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mayer, R.E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In N.M. Lambert & B.L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 1-22). WashingtonD.C.: American Psychological Association.

Mayer, R. E., (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, United Kingdom: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mayer, R. E., (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from

Mayer, R.E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.

Moller, Leslie, Prestera, Gustavo, Harvey, Douglas, Downs-Keller, Margaret, McCausland, Jo-Ann. (2002), Creating an Organic KnowledgeBuilding Environment with an Asynchronous Distributed Learning Context. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 47-58.

NationalCenter for Education Statistics. (2003) from

National Science Foundation. (2004) from

Pavio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: OxfordUniversity Press.

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In On the Horizon.NCBUniversity Press, Vol. 9 No. 5.

Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything! Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(5).

Reiser, R.A., and Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2002). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., & Fienhold, J. (2000). Using a computer animation to improve students' conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1517-1519.

Simpson, E. S. (2005). What teachers need to know about the video game generations. Tech Trends: Journal of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 49 (5)17-22.

Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B. & Shree, D, (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. Tech Trends: Journal of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.49 (5)34-42.

Suits, J.P. (2000). Conceptual change and chemistry achievement: A two dimensional model. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans; 39 pages. (ERIC Document # 441-704)